This topic deserves a new thread. I chose "Miscellaneous and other STUFF," so each member can express a view.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve VW:You need to do more research. Sulfur, (and CFC's) are not potent greenhouse gases and have little to do with global warming. Sulfur oxides are the #1 cause of ACID RAIN, which has killed millions of trees and plant life all over the world. Take a look at Sudbury, Ontario where the nickel refineries made the land look like the moon. Bad in China, too. 90% of sulfur emissions are MAN MADE from coal combustion (number one source of airborne mercury, too.) This is not conjecture it is REAL damage.

CFC's are entirely MAN MADE and are potent catalytic killers of ozone in the stratosphere. Ozone helps block harmful UV rays from reaching us at the surface. Jury is out on the actual damage but we are 100% responsible for these compound emissions. Not a warming issue, though.

GOOD NEWS: We have accepted that we are the major players in these cycles and ALL countries are striving to reduce/ban their release.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A FACT. Of course it is, we here in the Midwest were a mile deep in ice 50,000 yrs ago! Obviously it has warmed since then. The question is all about the RATE and WHO is affecting it.

The RATE of temperature rising has risen drastically since the 1700's when the industrial revolution started, the same time humans began burning million year old sequestered carbon and releasing it back into the air, FACT. Since carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, it is considered a contributing factor in global heat balance. Coal is over 95% carbon, it is the worst of the fossil fuels. (The rest is sulfur, at least hydrocarbons have some hydrogen along with the carbon.)

It is estimated that humans produce about 10% of the world's carbon dioxide. Here lies the controversy, is only 10% enough to cause global imbalance/change? No proof yet. There are several other normal greenhouse gases like methane at play as well.

Apparently, because no one can "prove" we caused harm, some feel comfortable continuing the emissions. Reminds of the "science" presented for years by the tobacco companies...

I believe that we have 3 strong arguments against coal (CO2, sulfur and strip mining) I also believe that ALL industries should be responsible for their impact in every way: soil, water and air. Why take a chance when you can do it right? Just like Mom said: scrub it out, clean up your mess, leave it like you found it.

We can do better than risk our children's world to save a few pennies on fuel, especially when the pennies go to fat cat energy magnates who tell us what we should do, science be damned. Trash the rivers, strip mine the land, pollute the air and make a buck...

In all things, reason and moderation should prevail. So ends the rant.

Please do not end your conversation Steve VW., I do not consider this rant. I have another question though.Environmental Protection Agency, has tried to ban "Outdoor Wood Furnaces" from usage. Wood is solar energy, because sun is needed to produce wood? Wood rotting in the forest produces typically the same "carbon footprint" as burning when it is returned to nature by rotting in the forest? If this is true, why is a Wood Burning Fireplace or Furnace considered a major polluter?

You are correct as far as carbon goes. Burning any non fossil fuel returns no ancient sequestered carbon to the atmosphere. The argument against modern wood stoves which have catalytic converters is especially weak.

Poorly managed combustion in any reactor will be sooty at best, often with carbon monoxide as well as carbon dioxide. These could be the argument for regulation. (Some people are still burning coal in home stoves, this would contribute to the sulfur problem.)

IMHO wood stoves are a drop in the bucket as for their total contibution to pollution. The regulations are more the result of politics, ie it is easier to regulate fringe operators than to take on the well financed giant operators with their lawyers, lobbyists and "scientists" to stall the regulations.

Many of the pollution issues have been distorted and ignored by the polluters in favor of making a quick buck.

If we follow the latest political argument we hear how the cost of these horrible attempts at reduction are destroying our industries...

Ok, so if we bail out of the Paris thing, then costs should go down? Do you really think we'll see lower fuel prices? More coal jobs? Yeah, right... but "energy stock" dividends will go up, bank on that.

Even our own energy industries now support the Paris accord. (Now that they were forced to spend the cleanup money, it would be a waste to abandon their investments in clean technology, even they agree.)

The US is still a major polluter, with many sins from the past, but we have been making great progress. Why go from a world leader to a no-show?

Only players get a seat at the table, take your chips off, go home or watch from the side lines. Decay is not a direct path from carbon based to carbon, just ask the mushrooms, carrion beetles and many other life forms.

Part 1: How do you fold a fitted sheet?Part 2: Where do you look for socks if you don't have a fitted sheet in the dryer?

Before they took the sulfur out of my diesel I got on average 4 mpg more, I think it has to do with tax revenue more than climate change. Because if volcanoes could be taxed they would make them cut down on their sulfur emissions, just think how much money they could have made off Mt.St. Helens ?

Originally posted by Dave R:Before they took the sulfur out of my diesel I got on average 4 mpg more, I think it has to do with tax revenue more than climate change. Because if volcanoes could be taxed they would make them cut down on their sulfur emissions, just think how much money they could have made off Mt.St. Helens ?

As a matter of fact Dave the old 6.9 did better on Miles Per Gallon Way back when it was nearly new. Good Point!

Just was thinking I use more fossil fuel to go less distance and you pointed out Mike. What makes burning more fuel to go less distance environmentally friendly? Same goes for ethanol? I call ethanol the filler fuel. You only get 85% to 90% actual fuel with every gallon.

Alcohol is a political fiasco. 10% will lower your mileage by 10%. In the 86 I put 75 gallons of real gas in N Dakota. Mileage was exactly 10% better. So I can drive exactly as far with 9 gallons of gas as 10 gallons of gasahol. Use 9 gallons of gas either way. Without taxpayer subsidies it is a financial loser too. The farmers get more for their corn but that raises price of beef and tortillas....

Originally posted by Dave R:Before they took the sulfur out of my diesel I got on average 4 mpg more,

After driving 200,000 miles in the Breakaway, and thru the sulfur deletion, I have noticed very little change in MPG, maybe a 0.1 or so but nothing dramatic. I drive hard and fast, do exact refills and keep very accurate records. 10.12 MPG average over the entire 200,000 that I have driven it. 271,738 on the clock now

Hemi, I did not consider your comment all that political. Most things we encounter get linked to politics. In the end time changes all things. No matter if we call it Global Warming, or Climate Change life goes on to change things. I do hope this website does not change even if the climate does warm change.

This website is dedicated to the Barth Custom Coach, their owners and those who admire this American made, quality crafted, motor coach.We are committed to the history, preservation and restoration of the Barth Custom Coach.